Verkeersborden

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description should disclose the read-only nature and any notable behaviors. It mentions the output fields (code, name, group) and the filter option, but does not mention potential large result sets or pagination. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and the filtering capability. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately lists the fields returned (code, name, group). It also hints at the filtering option. For a straightforward list tool, this is sufficient, though it could mention that the full list is returned by default.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers both parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description only mentions filtering by group without adding new information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists all traffic signs from appendix 1 of RVV 1990, with code, name, and group. It also mentions filtering by group, which distinguishes it from the singular sibling verkeersbord that likely provides details for a single sign.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an example of when to use the filter (to get only speed or priority signs), but it does not explicitly contrast with the singular verkeersbord tool. The plural vs singular naming implies a distinction, but an explicit statement of when to use which would be clearer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.